Document 18
Agency feedback
Community Support Programme (CSP) discussion paper
Contributing organisations
No.
Organisation
Contact
Date of submission
s. 47G(1)(a)
s. 47F(1)
1
26/7/2015
2
15/07/2015
3
10/07/2015
4
13/07/2015
5
13/07/2015
6
15/07/2015
7
15/07/2015
8
15/07/2015
9
15/07/2015
10
16/07/2015
11
20/07/2015
12
21/07/2015
13
20/07/2015
14
15/07/2015
15
15/07/2015
16
22/07/2015
17
16/07/2015
127
Document 18
x It is unclear who would pay the costs and provide settlement support for humanitarian entrants who do not have links in
Australia.
x Regional settlement can be appropriate if there are appropriate support services (English training, language support, cultural
and religious activities, employment opportunities).
x A lot of support is required for settlement of entrants with no family links.
x The Humanitarian Programme considers regional allocation levels and the balance of refugee arrivals from overseas,
allocating unlinked families to often regional areas. If the CSP were to feed into this it would support planned refugee
community development.
x s.
do not support settlement of entrants with no links in regional areas due to concerns around support services, personal
47G(1
links, employment prospects, exploitation, social exclusion, and community tension due to small pool of jobs.
x Advantages - entrants contribute to areas with smaller populations and workforces
x Disadvantages - a lack of appropriate services and possible difficulties integrating.
x Entrants should only be resettled in non-metropolitan locations if the levels of community services and social/economic
disadvantage are unlikely to jeopardise settlement outcomes and there is strong community support.
Should a Community Support Programme include an Assurance of Support (AOS) requirement?
Org
Key comments
s. 47G(1)(a)
x Will discourage some applicants, deter clients who don’t have the means but are able to settle clients
x Could create a debtor-creditor relationship.
x Support 10 year AOS, with bank guarantee.
x AOS is not necessary. Voluntary time and work already provided at no cost, raising this money will not be easy for the
community, will make it impossible for the most needy people to propose their family as they struggle with money.
138
Document 18
s. 47G(1)(a)
x Does not support AoS — increases risk of tension between proposer and entrant.
x Does not support an AOS — AoS does not consider hardships that entrants may suffer on arrival, and could lead to situations
where entrants become homeless or lead to mental health issues. Not all in humanitarian need will have the capacity to
afford an AoS.
x The future Community Support Programme model should consider building in effective ways to get entrants into employment
as soon as possible to both further their own settlement and to limit the need to access welfare payments. There may be
useful insights from models used in other countries to consider in this light.
x Does not support an AoS, but the VAC could be increased to around $25,000 to further offset costs related to healthcare and
income support. The VAC is less costly to administer and provides a known income stream.
x AMES recommends continuation of an APO bond scheme, as is currently used in the CPP.
x An AoS should not be required, particularly if the VAC is to remain at the same price.
x Attaching an AoS to a humanitarian visa, could be seen as a breach of international obligations under the ICESCR by
diminishing the social protection Australia currently affords to Humanitarian visa newcomers.
x An AoS is at odds with the basic objectives of the Humanitarian Program.
x An AOS leads to inequality through finances and does not consider settlement barriers faced by humanitarian entrants.
x Community members are generally content to pay the considerable Visa Application Charges, as well as the Approved
Proposing Organisation fees that are considered a de-facto Visa Application Charge, on the premise that their family members
living abroad, displaced from their country of origin and often living in horrific conditions, and have their visa applications
granted under priority processing.
x Do not support an AOS, as it may compromise settlement, lead to a vulnerable underclass, put additional pressure on the
relationship between the proposer and entrant, may have long term negative impacts, financial hardship already a factor in in
refugee communities – additional pressure will exacerbate.
Approaches to assist securing employment
Org
Key comments
s. 47G(1)(a)
x Employment services with cultural awareness and the ability to job match with pre-gained skills will lead to better
employment outcomes.
x Finding employment is best done through personal community links. Employment agencies unsuccessful in understanding
needs, and finding employment for refugees.
140
Document 18
s. 47G(1)(a)
x Families have significant social capital which can facilitate employment opportunities for new arrivals. Given the expected role
of families in a Community Support Programme, it is important for families to be informed about employment services and to
utilise their networks to facilitate entry to the job market.
x Employment can be assisted through AMEP, other English programmes, labour market programmes i.e. Jobactive.
x Labour market services need to be sufficiently aware of and sensitive to the needs of refugees, particularly torture and
trauma survivors.
x People proposed under the CSP, are likely to need tailored assistance to successfully transition into the labour market which
may include skills and qualifications recognition, bridging training and English language learning, opportunities to gain
Australian work experience and access to employment support.
x Ideally, proposers under a CSP should include an ‘employment strategy’ as part of the Application. The strategy would include
plans for orientation, training/education and skills development, leading to an assurance of employment, prior to the
lodgement of an application.
x Not all Proposers have the capacity and/or the expertise to explore and develop such initiatives. Therefore, as a
practice/procedure under a CSP, the Proposer/SCO could work with Jobactive, as part of completing their application.
x Finding employment is hindered by; limited English proficiency, recognition of skills, qualifications and experience, lack of
employment services supporting transition.
What is the role of communities in contributing to the Community Support Programme?
Org
Key comments
s. 47G(1)(a)
x VAC can create a huge financial stress on client and proposer, leading to negative impact on settlement.
x VAC should be based on partner stream entrants – better affordability and doesn’t compromise the values of the Australian
government.
x Disadvantages of VAC and AOS – those in need of resettlement yet have no resources for the VAC do not have the
opportunity for resettlement in Australia.
x Advantages of VAC and AOS – fast track priority, no financial burden on Australian government.
x VAC should cover cost of visa - similar to skilled migrant, where the entrant has to support their own family for 2-3 yrs
(resulting in minimal financial burden to the Australian Government).
x Families should be responsible for providing support services for the length of the programme (not just one year).
141
Document 18
s. 47G(1)(a)
x Longer term benefits are likely with greater involvement of proposers, family members and community members in providing
initial settlement support (however they must have a solid understanding of programmes and policies and not rely on their
own past experiences).
x Concern around having a fee structure for refugee visas, assessing resettlement capacity and employability factors as
eligibility criteria, or having any criteria which is not connected to humanitarian concerns of refugee protection.
x Community organisations require strong internal governance structures to ensure they can adequately fulfil responsibilities
involved in supporting families entering through the CSP.
x Cost factors may limit the ability for mainstream volunteer communities to be involved.
x Bulk of fees/charges should be incurred upon grant of a visa.
x Provide VAC concessions for larger families.
x There does not need to be a VAC for Humanitarian entrants. The services provided under the HSS Program are not needed
when a community support team is well trained and experienced, and can provide all aspects of settlement assistance and
ongoing help.
x If a VAC is required it should only be a minimal amount, as the community can cover most of the needs. The airfares should
always be on a no-interest loan scheme, to be gradually repaid, thus ensuring that there are ongoing funds to help others.
x A VAC would make it more difficult, as people already selflessly give so much time, energy, knowledge and care to assist new
arrivals, and much of it outside regular office hours.
x The high level of the VAC, and other upfront/ongoing costs of sponsoring family members, renders the programme to be
unattainable for many communities and community members.
x If the VAC is applied, the visa places offered under the Community Support Programme should be outside the Humanitarian
Programme allocation.
x Using a VAC in conjunction with an AOS will only make the programme more unattainable.
x The VAC should be as low as possible to allow all people in Australia with family and community connections in humanitarian
situations overseas to have fair and equitable access to propose suitable applicants to APOs for consideration by the
Department.
x Using a VAC in conjunction with the AoS compounds the significant financial burden on proposers.
x Resettlement through a Community Support Programme, with a VAC would present a cost-effective means of caring for
family members.
x In order to achieve a cost neutral programme, the VAC should be representative of:
o the cost of social support based on the Applicant family composition (full or partial cost recovery)
o overseas Processing costs (full or partial cost recovery)
o the Department’s administrative costs for the Programme (full or partial cost recovery).
142
Document 18
s. 47G(1)(a)
x As part of a commitment to service assurance, a CSP would also establish timeframe benchmarks at each of the
overseas posts:
o application received at overseas post; approximate date of interview; approximate date for completion of
verifications – circumstances, security, medical, other; approximate date for an Application outcome –
acceptance/refusal; approximate date for Visa issuance & exit permits; and approximate departure date.
x Proposers should be trained in delivering settlement support before entrants arrive — perhaps by APOs.
x VAC should be around $15,000 to $25,000 as that is a much more affordable range.
x To have a VAC in conjunction with an AoS is to deeply disadvantage majority of people seeking a humanitarian visa as it
becomes too costly for them to afford.
x There are families that are paying more than the VAC to keep their family members overseas alive and so would be willing to
pay the VAC and AoS if it means getting their family members to safety. It would also act to filter applications.
x VAC fees should be reduced if the program numbers are to be treated as part of the Australian Refugee & Humanitarian
Program. VAC fees should not increase if program numbers are counted separately.
x The VAC should properly be seen as a community contribution to assist in expanding the availability of humanitarian visas and
covering some costs involved in the administration of a CSP. The VAC amount should not be directly linked to the cost of the
HSS program or to Centrelink income amounts, as this creates an uncomfortable accounting exercise and devalues the other
contributions made by refugees and humanitarian entrants.
x The current VAC and APO charges seem to be set at a level that is relatively attractive for sponsoring family members.
x If the same VAC is applied in a community support programme, it can be argued that the contribution being made to the
consolidated revenue generated should be appropriately acknowledged by decreasing the processing time of the application.
o
However priority processing may break the principle that applications should be processed mainly according to merit
and need.
x VAC and AoS may force entrants into the workplace early, working well below their skill set and ability. It would be more
beneficial for the Humanitarian visa newcomers if they were granted social security payments to allow them to concentrate
on improving their English language ability and transitioning to Australian society.
x It must be recognized that private sponsorship does not rely on public resources, but funds of family members, ethnic groups
and other community associations.
143
